LAWS(BANG)-2008-10-6

MONOWARA BEGUM Vs. M.A. SIDDIQUE AND OTHER

Decided On October 20, 2008
Monowara Begum Appellant
V/S
M.A. Siddique And Other Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition the petitioners seek review of the judgment and order dated 16th September, 2007 passed in Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 315 of 2006 dismissing the same.

(2.) Short facts are that the plaintiffs instituted title Suit No. 86 of 1992 in the Court of Senior Assistant Judge, Savar, Dhaka for declaration of title, recovery of khas possession and for cancellation of deeds of schedule of the plaint stating, inter alia, that the suit land comprising 36 decimals belonged to the defendant No. 12 who entered into an agreement with the plaintiff No.1 to sell the suit land on 8.1.1987 at a consideration of Tk. 60,000/- and a sum of Tk.5,000/- was paid by the plaintiffs as earnest money and subsequently Tk. 44,060/- was paid out of balance consideration money and after receiving the said amount, the son of the defendant No. 12 on her behalf signed the written agreement and thereafter the plaintiffs paid Tk. 11,000/- to the defendant No.12 on 1.6.1989 as balance consideration money. Thereafter two deeds were written and both the deeds were executed by the defendant No. 12 on 1.6.1969 and it was decided that the deeds would be registered on commission. Subsequently the defendant No.12 failed to admit execution of the sale deeds for which the plaintiffs were compelled to file Title Suit No. 71 of 1990 and Title Suit No. 72 of 1992 in the Court of Assistant Judge, Savar, Dhaka and obtained ex-parte decree and got the deeds registered through Court. The plaintiffs were in possession. On 10.7.1989 the plaintiffs came to know of the kabala in the name of the defendant Nos. 1-8 regarding the suit land which were executed by the defendant No. 12 and defendant Nos. 1-8 were collusive and inoperative and not binding upon the plaintiffs. So the plaintiffs filed the present suit for declaration title, recovery of khas possession and cancellation of the deeds.

(3.) The defendant Nos.1-10 contested the suit by filing written statements denying the material allegations made in the plaint.